Scholarly Arrogance: D.F. Strauss and F.C. Baur

As I read the first volume of William Baird's History of New Testament Research, I was struck by the arrogance of many of the scholars. Two shining examples are D.F. Strauss (1808-1874) and F.C. Baur (1792-1860). These two scholars, whose impact on the study of the NT cannot be underestimated, are the prime examples of the influence of German idealism (as first espoused by Hegel) on the study of the NT. I think a quote from each will indicate both their commitment to history and their arrogance with regard to their ability to discern said history.

Whether the unification of the divine and the human nature actually took place in Christ can be decided only by historians, not philosophers. (Strauss, In Defense of My Life of Jesus, 18).

Whether the person of Jesus of Nazareth really possesses the attributes which belong to the established concept of the Redeemer is in fact a purely historical question, which can be answered only through an historical investigation of the literary sources of the Gospel stories. (Baur, cited in Baird, History, 1:260)

There are, in my opinion, at least two problems with these quotes:

1. Both expect quite a bit out of historical investigation. How can trying to ascertain provable facts (as defined by nineteenth century standards) prove one way or another a proposition about Jesus that is beyond the limitations of Strauss' and Baur's sort of historical investigation, namely, the divinity of Jesus? By searching only for a particular set of data and excising the rest, Strauss and Baur succeeded in severing the Christ of faith from the Jesus of history.
   
2. Both Strauss and Baur have a presupposition that they take with them to the texts about Jesus -- that the supernatural is not possible. So is it any surprise that the texts of the NT are stripped bare of almost all of their meaning by these scholars since these very texts are filled with the supernatural on virtually every page? Perhaps they would have been better served by being open to the possibility of something beyond the scope of human understanding!
   

Johannes Kuhn on Christianity and History

Over the holiday break I finished reading the first volume of Baird's History of New Testament Research. I am very excited about this, since it is a text for the quarter beginning just over a week from today. I have also found several more quotes that I have found especially stimulating that I want to share on my blog.

The one for today is from Johannes Kuhn (1806-1887), a Catholic biblical scholar who responded strongly to Strauss, Baur, and others like them. For Kuhn there was not a radical separation between the Jesus of History and the Christ of faith, in fact Christianity is firmly historical. This can be seen in the following quote found in Baird (1:333):

New Testament faith, where it appears in a characteristic way, is essentially a faith in Jesus the messiah, the reconciler and also the only necessary mediator of the salvation of humanity. ... Their [the NT authors] preaching and teaching is, in general and in its deepest roots, not abstract but historical: a simple reference to the gracious action and mighty deeds of God in the course of time."

Kuhn betrays his believe in God's revelation in history, especially as revealed in "Jesus the messiah." Kuhn wants to fight against the trend which was so popular in his day to rationalize Jesus into an unrecognizable and unremarkable religious leader who was later turned into something that he was not.

Baird provides another quote that summarizes Kuhn's understanding of Christianity and faith:

The historical character of Christianity rests namely upon the historical truth of the gospel story, and Christianity itself is nothing without it (1: 333).